The concurrent validity of three self-report measures of borderline personality

The recent accumulation of self-report measures of borderline personality disorder (BPD) affords the opportunity to evaluate both the construct validity of the concept and the quality of these measures. This study examines the relationship among three recently developed self-report instruments for assessing BPD from the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991), the MMPI Personality Disorders Scales (MPD; Morey, Waugh, & Blashfield, 1985), and the Bell Object Relations Inventory (BORI: Bell, Billington, & Becker, 1986). Data on the three measures were provided by 119 undergraduate subjects from a southeastern university. A correlational analysis addresses the convergence of these measures of BPD, their divergence from measures of different but related traits, and their independence from variance due to method. Application of the Campbell-Fiske (1959) criteria indicates adequate convergence for all the BPD measures but a lack of discriminant validity for the BORI scales. The fit of the data to a structural model of construct validity is tested using confirmatory factor analysis, and these results are consistent with the hypothesis of a latent borderline trait factor independent of measurement method factors. In sum, the construct validity of the borderline personality concept using self-report methodologies receives support, and a strong association between borderline personality and paranoid phenomena is also suggested.     

Malingering on the Personality Assessment Inventory: identification of specific feigned disorders

Profile validity is a primary consideration in the clinical assessment of psychopathology. Several indicators of negative impression management have been developed for the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991) that can both indicate its presence and help differentiate effortful negative distortion from distortion arising from cognitive sets associated with psychopathology. In this study, we tested a method designed to delineate the specific Clinical scales relevant for interpretation of deliberately feigned disorders. We used associations between the Negative Impression Management (NIM) scale and Clinical scales in the normative standardization sample to derive NIM predicted scale scores in a regression framework. We contrasted these predicted scores with observed scores on Clinical scales to yield NIM predicted discrepancies hypothesized to identify those Clinical scales most salient for the interpretation of negative distortion. We found this method to be effective in identifying particular distortion on the relevant scales for individuals attempting to feign 3 specific diagnoses (major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and schizophrenia).     

Maintaining binding in working memory: comparing the effects of intentional goals and incidental affordances

Much research on memory for binding depends on incidental measures. However, if encoding associations benefits from conscious attention, then incidental measures of binding memory might not yield a sufficient understanding of how binding is accomplished. Memory for letters and spatial locations was compared in three within-participants tasks, one in which binding was not afforded by stimulus presentation, one in which incidental binding was possible, and one in which binding was explicitly to be remembered. Some evidence for incidental binding was observed, but unique benefits of explicit binding instructions included preserved discrimination as set size increased and drastic reduction in false alarms to lures that included a new spatial location and an old letter. This suggests that substantial cognitive benefits, including enhanced memory for features themselves, might occur through intentional binding, and that incidental measures of binding might not reflect these advantages.     

Borderline personality: traits and disorder

Although the 5-factor model (FFM) has been advocated as an alternative to representing the construct of borderline personality, some argue that this diagnosis carries essential information that is not well captured by the FFM. The present study examined antecedent, concurrent, and predictive markers of construct validity in a sample of 362 patients with personality disorders. The results indicated that neuroticism best distinguished borderline and nonborderline patients, whereas the FFM as a whole captured a sizable proportion of the variance in the borderline diagnosis. However, the residual of the borderline diagnosis that was not explained by the FFM was found to be significantly related to childhood abuse history, family history of mood and substance use disorders, concurrent symptoms, and 2-year and 4-year outcomes. Thus, some elements of the borderline diagnosis may not be fully captured in a 5-factor representation.     

The Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study: reliability of axis I and II diagnoses

Both the interrater and test-retest-retest reliability of axis I and axis II disorders were assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I) and the Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders (DIPD-IV). Fair-good median interrater kappa (.40-.75) were found for all axis II disorders diagnosed five times or more, except antisocial personality disorder (1.0). All of the test-retest kappa for axis II disorders, except for narcissistic personality disorder (1.0) and paranoid personality disorder (.39), were also found to be fair-good. Interrater and test-retest dimensional reliability figures for axis II were generally higher than those for their categorical counterparts; most were in the excellent range (> .75). In terms of axis I, excellent median interrater kappa were found for six of the 10 disorders diagnosed five times or more, whereas fair-good median interrater kappa were found for the other four axis I disorders. In general, test-retest reliability figures for axis I disorders were somewhat lower than the interrater reliability figures. Three test-retest kappa were in the excellent range, six were in the fair-good range, and one (for dysthymia) was in the poor range (.35). Taken together, the results of this study suggest that both axis I and axis II disorders can be diagnosed reliably when using appropriate semistructured interviews. They also suggest that the reliability of axis II disorders is roughly equivalent to that reliability found for most axis I disorders.     

The Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study: development, aims, design, and sample characteristics

This paper describes the aims, background, design, and methods used in a collaborative longitudinal study of Axis II personality disorders (PDs). This study examines the putative stability of selected PD diagnoses and criteria, what factors affect their course, and whether their stability and course distinguishes them from a representative Axis I disorder. This article also describes the acquisition and demographics of the sample on whom the study is being done. A prospective, repeated measures investigation of the stability of PDs is now underway at multiple clinical settings in four collaborating urban sites in Boston. New Haven, New York, and Providence. Diagnostic assignments are based on semistructured interview assessments (by clinically trained raters) and confirmed by at least one additional contrasting diagnostic method. The sample consists of 668 treatment seeking and reliably diagnosed adults recruited from a broad range of clinical sites. By design, patients in the sample met standards for one of five diagnostic subgroups: (a) schizotypal (N = 86); (b) borderline (N = 175); (c) avoidant (N = 157); (d) obsessive-compulsive (N = 153) personality disorders or a control group having (e) major depressive disorder without personality disorder (N = 97).     

Associations in the course of personality disorders and Axis I disorders over time

In this study, the authors examined time-varying associations between schizotypal (STPD), borderline (BPD), avoidant (AVPD), or obsessive-compulsive (OCPD) personality disorders and co-occurring Axis I disorders in 544 adult participants from the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study. The authors tested predictions of specific longitudinal associations derived from a model of crosscutting psychobiological dimensions (L. J. Siever & K. L. Davis, 1991) with participants with the relevant Axis I disorders. The authors assessed participants at baseline and at 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up evaluations. BPD showed significant longitudinal associations with major depressive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder. AVPD was significantly associated with anxiety disorders (specifically social phobia and obsessive-compulsive disorder). Two of the four personality disorders under examination (STPD and OCPD) showed little or no association with Axis I disorders.     

Use of structured self-report assessment to diagnose borderline personality disorder during major depressive episodes

Diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) during episodes of major depression (MDE), although clinically important, is complicated in several respects when using self-report methods. Structured interview data were used to select a group of patients with comorbid BPD (n=21) from a sample of outpatients presenting with MDE. This group was compared with a group of MDE patients without BPD (n=24) and with a group of community controls (n=20) using self-report data from the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), the revised Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire (PDQ), and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Analyses revealed that the BPD group obtained significantly higher scores on PAI and PDQ scales measuring features of BPD and on the PAI Negative Impression Management scale. The severity and type of MDE symptoms reported on the PAI and BDI did not differentiate the clinical groups. These data show that useful information for the diagnosis of BPD during depressive episodes can be gathered from self-report assessment instruments like the PAI.     

A critical evaluation of c as a measure of mnemonic resolution

It is known that visual working memory capacity is limited, but the nature of this limit remains a subject of controversy. Increasingly, two factors are thought to limit visual memory: an object-based limit associated with so-called "slots" models, and an information-based limit associated with resource models. Recently, Barton, Ester, and Awh (2009) introduced a measure of mnemonic resolution, which they dubbed c. We show here that c is critically flawed, and cannot be interpreted as a measure of resolution. We recommend strongly against its use and interpretation, and suggest alternatives approaches for researchers who want to explore mnemonic resolution.